[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There might have been contact, but not at all was there a collision. The contact had to be slight at best.

That is why I said "Let's, for a moment, assume that there was simply a collision ..."

It was to seperate the specific play in the video to a more general situation where we all agree that there was a collision.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Even in the little break down, there is space between the chest of the defender and the shooter.

Agreed, but that is not the foul I'm seeing. If that was the case contact in the chest), I'd rule the defender as having made it to the spot. I saw it as the defenders shoulder clipping the shooter near the waist as the defender shifted into the shooter.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And the way the player fell, clearly shows that the contact did not result in the falling of the shooter.

I think it directly caused the shooter to fall. It was precisely the kind of reaction that occurs when the contact occurs as I described above.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The shooter was out of control and just because he fell does not warrant a foul.

I disagree here too. The shooter when up as shooters usually go up. He wasn't twisting and turning and throwing up a prayer. He when straight to the basket and got off a good shot (except that it got blocked).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There has to be something illegal, not just the end result of what we “think” happen. And that is the point that many of us are making. If we make calls simply because someone fell, then we are going to make a lot of bad calls as a result.

Peace

I'm using the reaction of the shooter with the understanding basic physics as a confirmation of the contact I see. The physical impact on the shooter seals the judgement for what would have otherwise been a nocall.